Page 2 of 17

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Sat Nov 17, 2018 2:15 pm
by Litwitlou
.
.
Well, there ain't no use in cryin'
'Cause it will only, only drive you mad.
Does it hurt to hear them lyin'?
Was this the only world you had?

— James Patrick (Jimmy) Page, Robert Plant

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Mon Nov 19, 2018 2:22 am
by Robert Tulip
DWill wrote:
Robert Tulip wrote:...the indigenous welcome has major value on several levels. Matilda’s concept of mother earth is highly religious, but has been excluded from traditional patriarchal Christianity and from science, in a pathology that illustrates the dangerous alienation of western imperialism from the earth...
...climate change as entirely compatible with capitalist economics...
Robert, I wonder if you could address what I see as, if not a true contradiction, then at least an extremely difficult reconciling of philosophies of life. You'll see what I mean by the two passages I've quoted. I have always associated adopting an ethic of nurturing and care with turning away from, not embracing, the emphases of capitalism, specifically that we are committed to economic growth fueled by consumption. The alternative doesn't need to be labeled socialism or communism, but it would certainly be a downsizing in terms of resources and energy used and the growth rate of the human population.
Thanks DWill, your comments raise a central problem in philosophy, politics and economics. One way to look at this problem is the tension between cooperation and competition as primary drivers of ethics, with implications for climate policy, and for social evolution more broadly.

Cooperation involves nurturing and care, recognising the unity of all life and the primacy of respect and empathy. These cooperative principles are central to ecological sustainability, protecting and stewarding the natural environment in a spirit of solidarity, recognising the broad damage caused by selfish and destructive actions.

This cooperative system of values is central to indigenous systems of spirituality, and to the whole idea of care for the earth that informs concern about our planetary future. The absence of cooperative values is a main cause of climate change, due to how modern culture has become alienated from nature.

Alienation is a dominant cultural syndrome arising from the history of western conquest with its self-serving apocalyptic pathology of the infinite providential frontier. A psychoanalytic philosophy can see how these cultural pathologies are present in much of the fantasy religion of the west, but how Christian traditions conceal a real potential for salvation from extinction beneath the supernatural veneer.

The downside of cooperation is seen in the socialist ideal of giving according to your ability and receiving only what you need, emphasising mutual equality over individual freedom. Enforced equality can become a way to prevent entrepreneurial risk, stifling individual innovation, motivation and creativity and producing conformity and stagnation.

The contrasting ethical value system grounded in competition stands in tension with these cooperative principles and problems, and is a primary driver of technological progress. Evolutionary processes of relentless competition for survival and reproduction generate ruthless efficiency, with only the most able and adaptive individuals and traits able to prosper, whether in nature or culture.

Competition promotes the market economics of capitalism, emphasising individual freedom rather than social equality, on the basis that freedom generates prosperity and opportunity. The task of integrating competitive values with the cooperative vision of climate restoration sees that climate restoration requires technological innovation, which can best achieve the required global scale and efficiency within a capitalist corporate framework, driven by private industry in cooperation with governments and scientists.

Human existence can rise above the fascistic Social Darwinism of colonial imperialism and its modern American versions that allow the weakest to fail in order to give incentive for the strong to improve and prosper. But finding the balance is complex, requiring public policy that resolves the tension between freedom and equality, integrating competition and cooperation as core values.

This tension between cooperation and competition appears strongly within Christianity, in what can be called the Matthew Paradox. Matthew 25 firstly promotes the ethic of competition, with Christ saying those who have much will be given even more. It then supports the contrasting ethic of cooperation, with Christ saying what we do to the least of the world we do to him. The resolution of this paradox is that only the abundance produced by competition can enable cooperative distribution of resources to meet the needs of all.

These principles underpin key debates in climate change. A broadly held communitarian view is that capitalist competition is destroying our planet, and only a fundamental shift of values to a simpler more equal and cooperative economy can reverse global warming. My view is that this focus on equality has important messages but is simplistic and misconceived in practice.

Efforts to decrease overall consumption face the immense barrier of popular democratic aspirations for improved standard of living. Even more importantly than this challenge of obtaining consent for a cooperative simplicity, the problem of destruction of the planet is not simply about the scale of human activity, but is also primarily about methods pf economic organisation. My view is that better management of the economy, within a capitalist framework, could actually increase real overall abundance while protecting ecology, for example by converting waste into resources, and especially by making use of the vast resources, energy and area available in the world oceans.

Solving the global warming problem requires a balance between shifting to less polluting lifestyles and cleaning up the mess we have made. Both these urgent objectives can best be achieved in my view through cooperation between governments and corporations to use the world ocean to convert the dangerous excess of carbon dioxide into valuable commodities.
DWill wrote:If it turns out not to be within the capacity of our nature to voluntarily step down, then our only response to climate change can be adaptation to its effects, which won't "work," but will temporarily address some of the problems.
I disagree that the only alternatives are adaptation or shrinkage of the economy. A third option, grounded in the ideas of negative emission technologies, is that methods to remove carbon from the air at sufficient scale could enable ongoing economic growth. My vision of the planetary future is high carbon, in the sense that we will work out simple methods to transform the carbon in CO2 into myriad useful products, such as plastics and textiles, which will then enable sustained productivity at scale.

For example, shifting carbon from the air into the soil through systems such as biochar has major potential to improve agriculture while also addressing global warming, as other NET Conference speakers discussed, of which more later.

A Seven F program can focus on fuel, food, feed, fabric, fertilizer, forests and fish as the primary carbon industries needed to save the planet.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 12:04 am
by Robert Tulip
Dr Clare Heyward, of the Institute of Advanced Sustainability Studies in Potsdam Germany, spoke at the Canberra Negative Emissions Technology Conference on challenges and opportunities of negative emission technologies, reflecting on moral debates in political philosophy around geoengineering.

Dr Heyward noted that this is a new area of discussion, with the Canberra meeting only the second ever conference on NETs, following the conference in Sweden in May 2018. She said the need to discuss both solar radiation management and greenhouse gas removal arises from recognition of the severe impacts of climate change as an existential crisis for our planet, and commented that failure to find ways to stop dangerous warming presents an ethical imperative to consider technology, aiming to adapt to a changed world, rectify impacts of past emissions and reduce future emissions.

My own view is that placing this existential moral crisis for our species in a cultural framework can usefully draw on religious metaphors for the apocalyptic risks of conflict, collapse and extinction caused by global warming, portraying the human situation as imperilled by the four horsemen of war, death, plague and famine.

Dr Heyward did not use such religious imagery, but said that morality is inherent in our response to global warming, putting NETs in the context of normative values, the philosophy of what we believe we should do. The dangerous threats raise moral problems around how we should respond, who should be responsible, what priorities should be considered and implications around timing.

Dr Heyward suggested a good reference is the 2009 book Why We Disagree About Climate Change by Dr Michael Hulme (link is to a 3 page synopsis). A key issue in this book is that values are not explicit, presenting a challenge to science, so a philosophical discussion on values, for example around the primacy of relationships over technology, can help to clarify strategic directions and priorities. In this short summary Dr Hulme explains some rather provocative views on how to think about climate change that align with my views. Here are some key points:
Michael Hulme wrote:Science may be solving the mysteries of climate, but it is not helping us discover the meaning of climate change... we must approach the idea of climate change as an imaginative resource around which our collective and personal identities and projects can and should take shape...The idea of climate change can provoke new ethical and theological thinking about our relationship with the future... Creative applications of the idea of climate change... may be hindered by the search for [global] agreement. "
Dr Heyward recommends not using the rubric of geoengineering, given how carbon dioxide removal NETs are overshadowed (pun) by solar radiation management. Instead, she says technology-specific discussions are needed on ethics and governance, aiming for what she termed an ‘integrationist’ perspective, addressing themes of distributive justice, vulnerability, resources, moral hazard, compensation, unforeseen impacts, conflict, biodiversity, hubris, land use, values and liabilities.

Questions arising through efforts to integrate climate change into a wholistic worldview include whether technology advocates have an inflated sense of ability to intervene in planetary systems, who decides and how, and whether technologies can be imposed on communities who oppose them. The seventeen Sustainable Development Goals of the United Nations present an example of efforts toward an Integrationist perspective, with linked goals addressing human rights. Some NETs affect goals under SDG 14 on oceans.

This philosophical perspective from Dr Heyward was welcome to me due to her effort to place the geoengineering discourse in the obvious and realistic strategic context that the dangers and costs of climate change are far greater than the risks of testing all options to prevent it.

Unfortunately that moral perspective of the balance of risks seems largely absent from public debates. Leaving aside the psychosis of climate denial, climate advocacy tends to be dominated by left wing fools who see climate change entirely through the class war opportunity of an attack on the fossil fuel industries, and who therefore automatically oppose all geoengineering efforts by invoking this class war narrative.

The moral imperative is to assess the impacts of options, and it is abundantly clear that the science shows that failure to geoengineer would definitely be catastrophic, whereas immediate testing of proposals offers some change of averting climate disaster.

I therefore disagreed with Dr Heyward’s opposition to geoengineering language. I argue in favour of geoengineering, and see questions of semantic framing as secondary. The concept of geoengineering has emerged from a technical mindset, among people who lack the capacity to frame the argument in political terms, even though the basic technical ideas are sound around the urgent need to cool the planet.

By contrast, the extremists who oppose geoengineering are more effective at political rhetoric, so have been effective in their unconscionable tactic of whipping up groundless fears. Preventing research on geoengineering perversely undermines the claimed objective of stopping global warming.

Tactical retreat on language may seem helpful in a toxic culture, but indicates weakness and a lack of certainty about strategy. The context here is a war for the future of the planet. In this dangerous situation it is worth considering the advice from the Emperor Napoleon, that in politics one should never retreat, never retract and never admit a mistake, even if not to that blank extent. The basic ideas of geoengineering are urgent, sound and essential. Refusing any concession to opponents is the best way to frame public debate to prevent dangerous warming.

The urgent geoengineering path is immediate solar radiation management to stop the impending crisis of cascading tipping points, accompanied by public private partnerships to develop methods to remove carbon from the air and sea, alongside the smaller task of cutting emissions. Taxing carbon is helpful for these efforts, but could prove marginal to the main agenda of devoting massive resources to stopping global warming as the primary security threat facing our planet.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Tue Nov 20, 2018 11:06 pm
by Robert Tulip
An article in New York Times on 19 November on Climate Change Doom argues that a climate apocalypse is not inevitable. I fully agree, but find it very interesting that apocalyptic discussion today is so readily framed in the natural science context of climate change rather than imaginary supernatural terrors.

Carbon removal and other geoengineering options present a viable path to avoid apocalypse, but the subtext is that our current planetary trajectory is indeed apocalyptic, requiring a change in thinking. With a head in the sand attitude, and without major cultural and economic change, the prognosis for cataclysmic impacts of climate change is dire.

Worth noting in the NYT article the comment from Katharine Hayhoe, a climate scientist at Texas Tech University about scientific conservatism: “If they say something’s bad, you know it’s probably a lot worse than they said.”

The article also links to a book Climate Ideologies which offers the sarcastic comment that "The prior errors of prophecy proved that no one knew anything about anything; therefore, climate change was the merest hot air." The author William Vollmann cites the most widely accepted ready refutation of climate change - “Why should I concentrate on anything that stresses me out?”

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:04 am
by DWill
Hi Robert. The title of Vollman's series is The Carbon Ideologies, the first volume of which was reviewed in a recent Atlantic, where it was billed as "the most honest look at climate change yet." Unfortunately, "honest" in this case means that Vollman offers scant hope of escaping catastrophe.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 9:50 am
by DWill
I have just one thought to give right now. Using the word "apocalypse" is not only hyperbolic, but it connects to a main reason that the vast majority of the world's people cannot get emotionally behind the imperative to counteract global warming. When I say "apocalypse" is hyperbolic, I only mean that such an event takes place suddenly, all at once. Though climate change will be catastrophic over time, it will manifest slowly in terms of human perspectives, which are based on our lifespans. People "know" this, and the knowledge allows us to continue short-terming. Thinking about Jared Diamond's book Collapse, I speculate that the seemingly inexplicable scenarios of civilizations' self-extinctions are parallel to the case of world civilization today. The eventual collapses are caused by a combination of denial of a future reckoning and such a strong attachment to a way of life that people would be willing to stick with that, no matter what. You appear to say that we can keep our way of life, no need to back down from it, but at the very least, the world regime you advocate will require the buy-in of citizens. They will have to consent to both the financial and political sacrifices (because they'll see them in such terms) that geo-engineering and massive exploitation of the oceans will entail, in other words a disruption to our way of life. If there was a large meteor headed for us, we'd be on board (though, these days, there would be cries of "conspiracy"), but we're the frogs in the slowly warming pot of water when it comes to climate.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 12:03 pm
by Litwitlou
DWill wrote: I only mean that such an event takes place suddenly, all at once. Though climate change will be catastrophic over time, it will manifest slowly in terms of human perspectives, which are based on our lifespans.
Are you sure about that? I'm not. I'd like to know Mr. Tulip's opinion.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 1:01 pm
by Taylor
I have been reading “Sapiens” on page six Harari expresses doubt that our species will be around in a thousand years. I haven’t finished reading the book but In thinking of “apocalypses” I think climate is the foremost factor facing us. DWill has it correct but I also see this as a slow moving downward spiral. I have serious issues with geoengineering. Management and financing will require major government oversight particularly if we consider the issue as an Apollo style project, likewise as an Manhattan project, I mean there are heavy costs and the free market fundies have zero interest in anybody looking over their shoulder. As too the 1% investment by fossil fuel towards research, well that’s just green washing.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Wed Nov 21, 2018 3:05 pm
by Robert Tulip
Litwitlou wrote:
DWill wrote: I only mean that such an event takes place suddenly, all at once. Though climate change will be catastrophic over time, it will manifest slowly in terms of human perspectives, which are based on our lifespans.
Are you sure about that? I'm not. I'd like to know Mr. Tulip's opinion.
Evolution proceeds by a process called punctuated equilibrium. That means species and ecosystems have long periods of stability that come to a very sudden end when a tipping point causes a phase shift. The five planetary extinction events, such as the acid sea of the Permian that killed off 95% of all marine species, and the asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs, are examples of punctuations, rather like a full stop for species that were killed off.

Anthropogenic climate change is causing feedback amplifiers as I discussed in my post above on the comments of Dr Will Steffen, leading to sudden dangerous warming and other cascading tipping points. As Dr Steffen said, the image of a canoe headed over a waterfall is a good way to think about climate change. At the first tug of the faster current it is still possible to steer to the bank and escape, but the situation rapidly becomes impossible.

Climate change does involve apocalyptic scenarios of conflict and collapse. The question of whether impacts will be sudden is rather like the turkey who maintains everything is stable and safe until it receives a surprise on the day before Thanksgiving.

Re: Dispatches from the Front Line of the Apocalypse

Posted: Thu Nov 22, 2018 11:46 am
by Taylor
Robert Tulip wrote:The downside of cooperation is seen in the socialist ideal of giving according to your ability and receiving only what you need, emphasising mutual equality over individual freedom. Enforced equality can become a way to prevent entrepreneurial risk, stifling individual innovation, motivation and creativity and producing conformity and stagnation.
This is I think an example of overplaying the argument that the left is hell-bent on pursuing a socialist agenda. I keep referring to free-market fundamentalism for the specific reason to combat this false premise. The extreme left in the U.S. are marginal at best and that's for good reason, the same could have been said of the extreme right, that was of course until Trump. For two agonizing years pragmatism was on the ropes (Yay blue wave, thanks Orange County California), Anyway back to point: For decades the right wingers have pushed this false narrative that democrats in general are pure socialist and that their goal is nothing short of a total overthrow of capitalism. Robert relentlessly implies as much with regularity. Its a strange paradox to be so convinced of the doom of sapiens through their own handy work and yet to equate the organizational capacity of open government as some sort of downside towards mitigation. (leastwise that's an impression I sometimes get). For Robert, economics "is complicated", particularly with regards to Anthropogenic global warming, and I can certainly understand why. Libertarianism does not allow for government intervention in what is seen as a sovereign state issue.

Pure libertarianism places the overwhelming onus of cost on the consumer and by virtue unburdens producers of responsibility. (uninhibited laissez-faire). I call this "Ayn Randian economic materialism". The current global scene is towards this philosophy, We see it with Trump and the right here in the U.S. and elsewhere in Europe and Australia, as well as South America, In short, Where ever we are witnessing the influence of Nationalism. In the U.S. uninhibited laissez-faire was put to the test I would suggest at the start of the American Civil War. Slavery is the ultimate form of "letting business do", We all know how that turned out. Ted Roosevelt and later his nephew FDR. Pushed back on libertarianism. It has been in the American tradition to recognize a social dilemma and debate the virtue, process and standards, goals, objectives. Whether the dilemma involves people physically or environmentally and solutions typically are found through both public and private cooperation. But not so much these days. That's what I see as Roberts paradox. Producers of pollution have the greater burden of responsibility, Yes, the consumer can forge an individual path but in what is seemingly virgin forest will undoubtedly have an encounter with an old discarded beverage container laying amongst decaying pineneedles.

Lately I've convinced myself that a progressive carbon tax is an acceptable form of mitigation finance. (I would like some time though to gather better thoughts on mitigation finance)